Brunch Links

I gotta get to Einstein’s! Had a bunch of potentially fabulous brunch links last night at the Isthmus Big Eat, I unfortunately did not have my camera on me. The person who has it –– are you reading? There will be consequences. High of 29, low of 14. I don’t know what the hell this is, but it comes from Bonfyre American Grille.

Jaimie thinks we should accept that computers can supplant Kindergarten teachers –– and mothers too I assume? One thing though Jaimie, I don’t think there’s been an “increase in middle school libido.” I’m pretty sure it’s about the same as when you learned how to hunt wooly mammoths in middle school.

That coincides with the State of the Tribes speech at the legislature today. In practice, I understand why the legislature would be a good place to have it, but in theory the tribes have very little to do with the state –– they deal directly with the feds.

Have to disagree on Slocum’s oped. Anyone can make generalizations about somebody’s intentions; just because he did that more articulately does not mean he wrote the column well. He should have done an interview – and to that end, Eric Fortney’s contact info SHOULD be appearing at the bottom of my column tomorrow for anyone interested.

I feel like that was a pretty solidly supported generalization to draw Clegg, they have left behind a lot of strong evidence that lends to that inductive conclusion. I don’t think it is fair to put that on par with just anyone drawing generalizations on peoples intentions.

What would they have said in an interview…yeah, you’re right, we are doing exactly what you suggest we are? I seriously doubt they would have said anything to me that they haven’t already publicly stated.

Perhaps Alec, but generally if somebody apologizes to the point of excess and offers to put their cellphone number on the opinion page, as they did when I called them, it is a solid indication that they can explain their intentions better than you can. Or at least that they’re willing to talk about it. These people are not hard to get in touch with. You should be able grasp that if there are any vagaries as to motive, it is somewhat intuitive that a thirty-minute phone call is more valid than conjecture.
And if you consider a snicker and an admittedly stupid sign to be solid support for saying that these people were insidiously “trying to exploit the uniquely American (another silly generalization) lack of respect for the societal importance of the arts,” quite frankly this piece has more problems than I thought. You’re a good enough writer and picked a good enough topic to know not to ruin a piece by casting aspersions on people you neglected to even contact.

Americans lack of respect for the arts is a fact. Case in point, a recent gallup poll showed that only 31% of Americans think that artists contribute a lot to society. That is disgusting, and nothing even resembling a silly generalization.

I guess I am a little more skeptical of these guys then you are. Of course they are going to apologize and say that isn’t what they thought once they realize they are losing support because of it. There is nothing magical about talking to them, it is completely predictable. These guys have done a number of things which all point in one direction in the public sphere, I don’t need to call them to find out if they regret doing it after. And yes, a designed banner, their public actions on national television, and those ridiculous advertisements in the form of open letters demonstrate arrogance and condescension. I think it is completely justified to call them out on it. Again, this is not conjecture. This is everything they have done in the public sphere. It is based on strong evidence.

Alec, just because large numbers of Americans think art isn’t useful to society, doesn’t mean large numbers of people in other countries don’t feel the same way. Your generalization was abysmally dumb because I highly doubt you have similar statistics for the rest of the world’s population; thus claiming this phenomenon is uniquely American is, well, absurd.

And it has nothing to do with skepticism. If you want to make a dumb comment and then pretend that you shouldn’t have done your homework by claiming to already know what they would say, that’s fine. But what standard are you using to claim this as strong evidence? Literally – a chuckle at the end of an interview and a fucking sign?

And if you are so capable of divining their intentions, what purpose would it possibly serve to anger the one constituency that

could have possibly helped them? What arts-hating fogey redneck is going to actually call the Board of Regents and stick it to them for their use of eminent domain? If we’re generalizing than is it not obvious that students are much more likely to mobilize in favor of Brothers than anyone else, given that they are the people who use the bar? What purpose would it serve to alienate them? And even IF the Fortneys are as cunning as you indicate, wouldn’t they have realized that? The motive doesn’t add up. Thus you should have done the journalism and given them a call.
And sorry if this comes of as hyperventilation but I don’t go on temper tantrums with writers I don’t respect. You’re one of the few Herald writers for opinion who does local work and does it decently well; thus you’re good enough to do better.

First of all, you can take out ‘uniquely’ if you want, it doesn’t matter. The argument remains unchanged (and based on solid fact). All the Brothers owners need is a population that fails to respect the arts, the uniquely aspect was something thrown in by me.

But, come on Sam, you really think only 31% of european populations think artists contribute a lot to society? Take any indicator of support for the arts – government investment, salary, stature, magazine spreads if you want, and compare the U.S. to other advanced western democracies. You lived in France for a semester, and unless you had a completely different experience from every other person I have ever talked to that has family or experiences in Europe, I’m sure you noticed that. I don’t understand why you are even trying to contest that.

It has everything to do with skepticism. In your column today (which I think severely misrepresented my view, something I would not expect from you as a writer) you write:

“In an interview with Eric Fortney, the co-owner of the bar apologized profusely for any potential offense the sign may have caused, saying he and Marc are not, as was implied in yesterday’s article, opposed to the existence of a music school building.”

It was implied in my article that they oppose a music school? They put up a fucking 2-story banner that explicitly said, “No UW Music School.” I’m not implying or interpreting anything, I am commenting on a premeditated explicity public statement. We are both attempting to guess their intentions, you seem to be taking their word for what they said in a phone call with you where they said completely incoherent shit, I am going off their actions and statements before they knew they would be unpopular. I’ll take my process anyday.

I covered all the stuff about why that type of a campaign wouldn’t work in my piece. It doesn’t work, I don’t know why they did it, but they did. I wouldn’t be the first to accuse these guys of lacking some tact or foresight.

Stop belittling their banner and NATIONAL TELEVISION interview and flat-out ignoring their full page ads as strong evidence, it is, not matter how you try to frame it.

Shadow anti-music populists? Red-neck arts hating fogeys? I think in this situation you should have done your homework, unless you think that is a fair characterization of 70% of the US population.